Story looks good but given from a very commercial viewpoint !!A lot of theoratical blabla, the most intelectual point of view is in my opinion Ralf Dujmovits decision not to take "non-climbers" to the Death Zone.

You present yourselfs as guides but you know it's bullMrHanky upthere !

Why is it that always these discussions turn up AFTER an accident, a serious one in your own expedition.......

Good luck in trying to get more clients in your "trips" by offering phsycological safety but 8000+ verterans know it sounds like crap !!!!

There is no need to be condescending. People are not stupid. They know that when you climb over 7500m with a guide, you are by yourself and that you shouldn't expect your guide to help you if something goes wrong.

You hire a sherpa and/or a guide not to be alone up high and to call for help if something goes wrong. If they can help you descend then it's a bonus. You know that your guide is under a lot of strain up high and that the decision making process will not be perfect and that some decision that your guide can make will be the wrong ones. That is why I believe the people who climb Everest should have enough experience to know for themselves when to stop and when to continue, and not to expect the guide to take that decision for you.

Guiding 8000m mountains will always constitute a risk for guides, but I believe you are responsible for yourself up high and not the guide. If you are not confortable by yourself at that altitude then don't go. And that's why I believe that Harry is not responsible for the death of Thomas whatever he did up high.

What would you recommend to make Everest safer? Since it is not possible to control novice climbers from going to "E", what would you propose? I have heard that the mountain commerce needs to be regulated by independent instances. There are many opinions, what is yours?

The bottom line is that there are no guarantees in the "death zone" and any experienced climber knows that.

MC

« Last Edit: Aug 2 2006, 13:02 by mc »

Logged

"I go to the mountains for there I find higher ground." m.c. reinhardt

I think the major problem is that a lot of inexperienced climbers went up Everest, thinking that it will be easy especially with a guide.

Sometimes, we can anticipate problems. Most of the time, we cant, and we have to learn from accidents and mistakes. What Alex is trying to do is to mitigate the risks for the 'novices' going up Everest. Even if he doesnt take any 'novice' clients from now on, there will still be other companies who do. We cant stop that, unless there is a law passed in Nepal and Tibet/China banning people from climbing Everest if they cannot show proof that they have summitted other high altitude mountains before. Then again, for tourism purposes, they wont even think of passing such laws.

The next best thing I suppose would be for the mountaineering societies in both countries to come up with a fee (as part of the climbing permit) and use that for rescue purposes. Most climbers would have rescue insurance anyway. However, we have to remember that having such an initiative do not guarantee that you would still be rescued in time. From what I have read, conditions are harsh up there, even with oxygen.

Personally, I think I should attempt a whole lot of other mountains such as those at 5000+m, 6000+m, 7000+m before even attempting the 8000+m mountains. The seven summits would be a good start, followed by maybe Shishapangma and Cho Oyu before attempting the big one.

It's a bit the same as Alex's "training-scheme" for Everest with walking/biking etc.... Any real climber knows how to prepair and know when he FEELS able to go to Everest or any other 8000+ mountain.

Climbhigh

Unfortunately, not all who go to Everest are real climbers. Just like not many would turn back if they did not reach the summit by 2 pm. Remember 1996? There were quite a number of 'novice' climbers then if I am not mistaken. A real climber will know when to turn back. A real climber will know when it is time to retreat if the mountain does not allow him/her to summit.

I dont know when or if I ever will summit Everest. But one thing for sure, I wouldnt go now even if I have the $$$. I am just not there yet.

My opinion is the expeditions should regulate the qualifications of the climbers. I certainly was concerned that Alex could have booted me off the team if he felt I was not qualified. I distinctly remember thinking this. this was last year.

This is Everest. What happened to the awe? I know it is getting more commercialized, but any limits by governments / agencies should be numbers, not qualifications. Climbers need to know the risks.

This (organized rescue teams) could even backfire if inexperienced climbers think they will be rescued, should they realize, they are not qualified, at 28,000 feet.

I knew the risks, and was told by EVERYONE (except Jamie) that I cannot expect a rescue. sure, my team will try, but there are obvious limits. I went anyway.

If Alex, Russell, Harry, or anyone organize rescue teams, then great, but let's not count on it.

It's not only about the 1996 disaster but also take a hard look at 2006.....

After reading this magazine you come to the conclusion that setting up "rescue teams" on Everest will give a very false idea of help and will atract even more "guides" and "clients" who think they're ready for Everest, all for the sake of money and numbers.

By the way: Did ABS and airbags made driving a car safer? No, people FELT they were safer and reacted to that by driving more dangerous.........

Have a look !!!!

By the way: I am a climber (up to 8000m) but regarding my next trip: I'm (besides physical training) preparing myself in an armchair.....